Upcoming tides preview of rising sea levels?

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Jonathan Stumpf, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. So four discussion pages later, you can check out the photos submitted last month during those record high tides in the Sound: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_hightide.htm

    Yes, under the header Climate Change.

    From Dept. of Ecology:
    Now we have another opportunity to document these seasonal high tides. Those of you who happen to photograph the high tide events February 1 - 3 are invited to submit your images to the Washington State Department of Ecology. We are interested in using these images to help document the coastal impacts our state is likely to face with increasing frequency as sea levels continue to rise.
    Images can be submitted via email to ‘ecologyoutreach@ecy.wa.gov’ – along with the date, time, and detailed location information. Please provide contact information if you'd like us to send you a release form for future publication of your photos.
  2. This is the "They" you are missing...

  3. Jim, thats just another link to an opinion piece written by a journalist, not a scientist.
  4. Yes it is, but I was trying to answer the question of who "they" were. There are a lot of people profiting and that stand to profit on the Global Warming issue (I would like to know how many scientists get grants or are supported by their peer groups if their study was on global cooling), I personally don't care either way other than I wish the truth would come out rather than data manipulation and people/organizations with hidden agenda's. To date, I have seen few level headed solutions regarding Climate Change. The GW'ers want draconian measures taken (i.e. Cap and Tax, just wait, you are a carbon dioxide creation machine, just wait till they tax each exhale you have, what a novel way to blunt population growth, taxing the number of dependents you have that create carbon dioxide, this would be a Vegan's wet dream, taxing ranchers based on how much cow flatulence is created ) , the deniers want to keep doing what we are doing, which is wasteful no matter how you look at it. Me, I am a go with the flow kinda guy, when change happens, we adapt. Lately I have been checking out how to go solar, not because its ecologically sensitive but because its economical and I am tired of getting higher and higher power bills as well as desiring more independence. Personally I would like to see a few less dam's on the rivers just because I really like to fish. Is this due to a caring for the planet position, nope, its just the market place in action.

    I just Googled "Who profits from Global Warming" and got a lot of hits


    Just a tidbit for thoughts: If the majority of Seattlites and Western Washington politicians REALLY belive that global warming is inevitable and the seas are going to rise, why are they putting the replacement of the Alaskan Way viaduct underground? Shouldn't the option to raise it above ground even higher be more appropriate, if the seas are rising, then this would make the replacement be useful for a bit longer. It couldn't be that the developers of the real estate along the AWV have any sway over the politicians now could it?

    Anyway, just a thought.
  5. Jim, it sounds to me that They are out to get you.


  6. I still don't see where anybody is cutting a fat hog by warning of possible effects from climate change. Alternative power is getting some grant money, but compared to the billions of bucks in petroleum and coal profits from doing business as usual, I believe that claiming that the primary motivation is profit is a red herring.
  7. Arguing climate change with the vast majority of conservatives is a waste of time and breath. It's like the "birther" movement. The majority of tea party conservatives believe the president was born in a foreign country. Of course there is no legitimate evidence of any of this, but they start asking the president to "prove" he was born in the US. Evidence is then supplied, but of course this is not enough. What if the evidence is doctored? How do we KNOW he wasn't in Kenya?

    They are trying to twist and confuse the argument so the burden of proof is suddenly on the defendant instead of the accuser.

    The other analogy is cigarette lawyers. For years they argued people who smoke get cancer. People who don't smoke get cancer. Therefore who could possibly prove smoking causes cancer. They tried to make health care experts and providers PROVE cigarettes are dangerous instead of the other way around. When a new drug or product is introduced it's up to the manufacturer to prove their product is safe, not our responsibility to prove after the fact it wasn't.

    I ask the climate change skeptics:
    - Prove 570 million cars on the road are NOT hurting the environment
    - Prove 6.7 billion people are NOT causing negative changes to our environment
    - Prove massive amounts of CO2 from millions of years of history being released in the last 100 years is NOT changing the Earth

    You'll notice the party of no thinks by referencing Al Gore's income they can make common sense disappear. If they throw out false charges of conspiracy theories among liberal universities we'll ignore the common sense we see in our day to day lives.

    Current generations look back and think "how could people be so dumb to think smoking twenty cigarettes a day was healthy?" History will look as unkindly towards the climate change skeptics.
  8. Typical liberal Blah, Blah, Blah from Tom, can't stay on subject, but has to bring in birthers, smoking, party of NO, etc., to reinforce his weak argument. Anything to take your mind off the actual subject at hand. I believe in none of those things, but still think there is much to be skeptical about in the Global Warming, or is it Climate Change,argument.

    Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website in 2007 revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

    Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

    * Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)
    * Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940
    * The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900
    * 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.
    * 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).

    We're almost back to the 1970's theory of global cooling! The data clearly changes things.

    Had we been living in 1934 we would have heard the same claims of global warming, this is the evidence that we would have heard at the time:

    * 8 of the past 10 years had been above average.
    * 1934 was the warmest year ever recorded. The warmest in over 54 years!

    Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average. It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing. If we could look at the past 1,000 years with the accuracy of the past 100 years we would most likely find that this is not unusual at all.

    I suppose NASA is in the pockets of the Party of No, and must bow down to Al Gore's infinite wisdom and have "Faith" in his predictions instead.

    Oh, and by the way, the Vikings were able to grow gardens on Greenland when they landed there hundreds of years ago, which is impossible in that same area now due to the cold temperatures, so maybe there is a Global Warming exemption zone put in place for that area, I'll have to check with the U.N.
  9. typical rightwingnut lack of logic from tod. so, tod, answer the questions tom posed..............
  10. Common sense would indicate that yes we humans do have an
    effect on the earths environment. Global clearcuts, pollution, over population...etc.
    Do these thing effect the weather? How can they not?!

    Call it F-ing Up the Enviroment instead of Global Warming or Cooling
    and then tell me there is no problem.

  11. I have already answered similar questions in earlier posts, I believe we should limit emissions to clean up the air, and we have.

    I have one child and that's all, so I am only adding one to your 6.7 billion.

    I don't think anyone believes we don't create CO2, and that there is no harm from it. But I don't believe we are the cause of all the world's issues either.

    I am a state certified Erosion and sediment control lead, and design, install and maintain systems to protect our waterways from silt and pollution. I have supervised the cleanup of three Superfund sites. I have personally restored several watersheds and creeks as a supervisor, and belong to many conservation organizations, to include DU, RMEF, WFF, RGS, CCA, and some trails organizations too. So, take your rightwingnut and shove it up your @#$, I do more to protect the environment at work every day than most people do in a year. I just don't believe that we have caused all this global warming horse#$@^, and because I disagree, and choose to post contrary evidence, I will be ostracized by you on the left.
  12. Tod, Glad to hear that you are not out killing endangered critters and
    saving the planet one dump site at a time. So the enviroment is doing fine
    and there is no such thing as global (what ever you call it) semi-warmish
    thingamabob. Why so cranky that people want to do right by mama earth?
    Please call me a left hand wang knut.

  13. I recently read a fantastic book by Thomas Friedman titled, "Hot, Flat and Crowded". I'm sure some of you have heard of it and its a great read. One of the many points the author brings up is essentially this:

    Why not do the very best you can to restore the earth and keep it healthy? If global warming is a farce (which almost nobody believes it is) then we will still be in great shape to continue to prosper with mother earth. If its real and some of the grizzly projections come true then we'll be glad we've done the best we could to offset the changes.

    Friedman is by no means a bleeding-heart liberal or a scientist, he's a journalist. What he's done is travel the globe and interview those who know what their talking about.

    Todd, I know nothing about you but I thank you for your work to restore our watersheds. I'm sure you've found some incredible damage to some pristine places. What we have to remember is that the damage you're seeing to our watershed is happening all over the world at an accelerated pace and its not just damaged watersheds. We, as a world community, are damaging our air quality, our forests, our native species and our oceans (to name a few) at a rate that has never been seen. This should not be a partisan issue but rather an issue of whether or not the earth can sustain our current levels of consumption. Observations and research show that we, as a whole world society, are consuming more than ever and we can only produce what we consume from a finite amount of resources. Logically, it is foolish to think we aren't making an impact on the earth as we ask more of it every day and give less back to it. Read Friedman's book and see what you think.

    Labels and battles between political parties on this issue are divisive and counter-productive. Everyone, do the research and form your own opinions. Don't eat what a political party feeds (about the environment or anything else).
  14. jmwfish, thanks for saying what I am unable to....... being old and left handed
    and a crummy caster.
  15. I do what I can, being young, right handed and a damn good caster. Ok, I lied. I'm a crummy caster, too, but the rest is true, I swear!
  16. I'm not cranky about people doing what they can. I am cranky about being labeled and lumped in with Birthers, smokers, party of NO, and other things because I don't totally agree with the global warming argument, it's the politics of personal destruction at its best. If someone doesn't fall in lock step with The Party's beliefs, we must totally ostracize them, there can be no middle ground with those types.
    Oh, and by the way, I do enjoy a cigar and my pipe occasionally, and I do know there are possible health consequences for my actions, and I don't need government legislation to save me from my actions.
  17. Just one question coming from someone who has absolutely zero loyalty or trust to any political party. If climate change and global warming/ cooling are not natural cycles, then how the hell did the planet manage to get into or even better out of ice ages throughout history? I have a hard time believing we sent a bunch of dirty smelly combustion engines back in time to create smog to warm the planet 10,000 years ago... Just a thought.
  18. I saw a lecture on one of the local educational cable stations from a University of Washington professor. He says over the the last million years there have been consistent climate cycles of 90,000 years of ice age followed by 10,000 years of spiked warming periods. He also felt we were nearing the end of one of those 10,000 year spikes. Maybe the "scientists" are looking at this all wrong.
  19. There aren't any climatologists that deny that climate cycles take place. The climate change argument says that we are speeding up the natural warming trend and that, because of humans, the earth is warming faster than it should be. Understand that, yes, these trends naturally occur but extracting oil from underneath the earth's crust, burning it and emitting the results (CO2) does not, at least at the rate that we are doing it. Warming and cooling naturally takes place but we may be altering that natural cycle and warming things up faster than usual.
  20. Really jmwfish224. I had no idea that is what all this global warming climate change thing was all about thanks for clearing that up for me. What I thought was interesting was the notiion of worrying about the shorter period of the warming cycle when it seems to me, if this professor is on to something, we might be better off looking at the other 90% of the cycle when it gets really cold.

Share This Page